111–120 of 377 posts
Civil disobedience means accepting the consequences of your actions.
Maybe he just raped a girl. Case closed. No huge conspiracies. Question is, if he gets freed, what will happen then?
If you seriously believe that, than you are either very naive or lying to yourself. It is obvious that influential people who feel threatened by Wikileaks fabricated the whole incident.
How else could it be? Think seriously about it. If you manage to convince yourself that there is a real chance of rape happened, then tell me how you did it. Maybe you can convince me too.
Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condo…
Having sex with someone who is sleeping is definitely (alleged) rape, unless she agreed to it beforehand or something. Even if they had consensual sex previously. Am I misunderstanding your comment?
I mean, that's a very grey and complicated area. I had an ex who would do that type of thing, and it was never discussed but was absolutely welcome. I suppose after the first time you could argue some type of implicit consent. Or maybe I'm just a Stockholm Syndrome candidate.
I have no idea the dynamics of the Assange case, but the hyper-contractual notion of consent that has come into popularity in the last few years just seems to ignore the humanity of human relations.
Assange is accused of unlawful coercion and "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). In the first case, the complainant willingly had an intercourse with him. But after sex, she realized that the condom had a hole. She claims that he made it. In the second case, the complainant also willingly had an intercourse with Assange, they slept naked together. The next day in the morning, he penetrated her without a condo…
Uh, what? You then go on:
"This is obviously serious. He could have transmitted STDs to the complainants. Unprotected sex should be agreed by both."
You think the serious part is the lack of protection, rather than that she was asleep? I'd advise you read up some more on what constitutes rape and what constitues consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone consents to have sex only on the condition of protection from disease and pregnancy, and you trick them into sex without a condom that is rape. There may be differences of degrees to the stereotypical violent behind-the-bushes rape. Those should and would be considered for purposes of sentencing. But it's still rape.
Does the law actually say so? To what extent does "rape by lying" exist? I imagine "I'm actually not a doctor" or "let me just remove my makeup" don't count... How about not paying a prostitute after sex (assuming prostitution is legal), does it count as rape (she consented to sex on the condition of paying) or just theft ? Are women that say they're on the pill but aren't, or that use the man's sperm to impregnate t…
Misleading in order to obtain consent is not the same as getting consent for activity A then undertaking activity B.
In the first instance one can complain that they wouldn't have given consent had they known the truth. In the second instance consent was not given.
Can someone explain to me why the general public has ”turned” on Assange in the last few years? Is it because Wikileaks revealed those Hillary Clinton emails? And that’s the ”protagonist” party? Or is it the rape accusations initiated in Sweden?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What relationship does his English conviction have to any US extradition request? (Be it the one that's been sent, or any hypothetical one to Sweden.)
Ehm, good question; it's been a while since I read about this. I think, but don't pin me down on this, that his being kept in a single country would give the US enough time to draw up a formal extradition request for that specific country, whereas if a country isn't able to hold him, the request might not come in time. Hopefully somebody else can chime in with a more reliable explanation.
Similarly the US will not request extradition for some suspects and wait until they set foot in the US and arrest them then. Saving the need for an extradition battle. If they really want you and you are Russian, they wait until you go on holiday outside russian borders and grab you as you step off the plane.
One thing I'm wondering, before he fled to the Embassy, he was out on bail, for which supporters of his put up their property for. Given that he skipped bail they would have forfeited that property, now that he's arrested again do they get it back?
The supporters who put money and assets forward where doing it to show their faith that Assange was not a flight risk. This has been proven to be false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read she never opened a case against him. It was just police officer who did it in her name? I think it's too much misinformation and lies to tell what really happened.
The facts are she went to the police station to report it. Why would she do that if she didn't want the police to do anything? When the first prosecutor decided not to proceed with the case, her lawyer asked for this decision to be reviewed. Why would her lawyer do this if she didn't want the case resumed?
This is not a big secret, the facts of the case are there for everyone to find.